Oklahoma Weather Tracking Licensure Legislation

[gdlewen]

BTW, I was told the 4-5 yes votes at the end, that got the bill passed were "copycat" votes by legislators who follow a long-time representative that they wait for until he casts his vote and follow him. Hopefully, the Senate is made up of classier, better looking and more intelligent members.

Yes and I have heard that as well. They have a Rep they trust and vote with that person without bothering to know for what they are voting. Bad bill. Close vote. Bad result.

 

[Randy Jennings]

I have to disagree with this. The job they signed up for is to understand each bill that comes before them, and vote as their conscience dictates . They actually get paid a decent salary for serving. Not great but not peanuts either.

I agree with you that they should understand, but I don't think that is what happens in many cases. I also probably didn't pick the best words for my point. What I saw in the stream is that there is a group of Reps (not all of them) who had clearly reviewed the bill, given it thought, and had listened to the people of OK that they represent and voted no. The OK House rules allow the principal author to close debate and force a vote and this is what happened on HB2426 as soon as the third reading was done, thus no debate on the bill occurred. The "Q&A" period before the third reading is the only "debate" that happened. A number of the no votes did not ask any questions. There could be many reasons for this - they thought others covered it, they didn't know enough or care enough to ask a "question" (really debate), or political (I hate this bill but I need Rep X's vote on my bill so I am going to keep my mouth shut).

Of the ones that asked questions (once again really debate as they knew Rep Fetgatter would close debate), several seemed to care but they didn't really do an effective job of convincing their peers to vote no. This is similar to a problem in journalism today. With the cut backs in newsroom budgets, their are few beat reporters these days. Most reporters are generalists these days. Even when they try, they often don't get everything right as they are not experts in what they are reporting. They become a jack of all trades and master of none. I think a few of the Reps tried, but there is no way they have spent the amount of time discussing and thinking about this bill as we have, and heck we don't even all agree on everything about the bill or how to effectively fight it. That is why we have to make it easy for them to make effective arguments (likely in a Q&A format) against the bill.

 

[Randy Zipser]

There is evidence disputing the claims of the bill sponsors, so I do believe an effective challenge to their 'public good' facade can be made. Their entire premise is flimsy and disengenuous. The scariest traffic I ever saw on a chase was the miles long lines of locals who panicked when media told them to drive away from the storms on May 31, 2013 in OKC. The same big media types who now want more power and influence back. The same ones who are always the ones crashing or getting people hurt or killed on storm days now want more power, when they cannot handle that which they already have.

I agree somewhat that a line of chasers clogging a road that cannot handle it is a problem, but this bill does NOTHING to address that. That will still happen with this bill passed. The bill was openly stated by Payne to be about getting his people closer to the storm and how everyone in their way is a problem (sounds to me like he has a massive ego and twisted morality, but hey thats just my opinion).

I do think there is room for simple messaging to take this bill down, and risking sounding like a broken record, those points are:

1. Big media is not the leading cause of weather awareness to the public as they claimed to the legislature. Far from it in the age of cell phones and internet nearly everywhere. Amateurs (anything not big money interests as defined in the bill) are a larger source of warnings, and their effectiveness may be limited by this bill if they are getting pushed around on the roads.
2. Big media and academia are the group with the highest percentage of fatalities and incidents while chasing, despite how much smaller in number they are than the 'amateur' chasers. They are already a proven problem, and they don't need more power, they need less.
3. With all of their money, and the fact they are so called professionals, somehow they are at the back of the line and can't stay a step ahead of amateurs? Yet, amateurs are out there being successful already? Why do we need to legislate special poweres for incompetent media?
4. The bill is being applied to citizens/voters of OK, as well as any visitors, under the auspice of public safety. This purpose and reality is easily disproven (see above points). The bill only benefits large money interests at the expense and safety of the general public.
5. Enforcement of this bill (yielding to media) will be a complete joke and near impossibility. People scrambling out of the way, or chasers heading to storms are going to be put in real danger by having the sudden unexpected factor off some media idiot trying to run them off the road. Real first responders who are trained to have code 3 power only when life is threatened are going to be far too busy to be writing tickets for not yielding to channel 9's corporate chaser convoy running their special code 3 for no other cause than TV ratings.

For anyone representative who does not understand the above points, maybe we can get them to watch Twister and learn by analogy? Everyone in the public are the 'good guys'. The bills sponsors seem to be behaving somewhat like the villain Jonas - they seem to be placing corporate interests above everything else and ignoring any other opinions. The difference is, in the film, Jonas didn't get special laws to enable his bad behavior even further, and in that ideal film world karma got him for being what he was. Jonas was probably actually a nicer guy than some of the real world people we are all observing.

Now we're talkin'!! This is what I had in mind when I posted last night (Post #593). In addition to Dave C's excellent talking points above, here are a few more "weaknesses" in the piece of legislation, soon-to-be before the OK senate, that should be brought to the attention now of each and every senator (listed in no particular order of priority):

1. Warren Faidley has repeatedly railed about the many, obvious dangers (including possible increased traffic fatalities) of "legally" allowing private media and OU meteorological-research vehicles to run Code 3 on Oklahoma roads during severe-storm days.
Exploitable argument!

2. Possible loss of revenue (e.g., state gasoline tax) to the state's coffers due to bad publicity "scaring off" out-of-state chasers ("visitors" who come to Oklahoma primarily to chase storms) during the three-to-four-month-long tornado season each year.
Exploitable argument!

3. Possible adverse economic impacts on Oklahoma's local government (county and especially smaller town) budgets due to a reduction in lodging bed-tax and restaurant/business patronage.
Exploitable argument!

4. Possible increase to all Oklahoma residents' vehicle insurance rates due to the additional layer of actuarial risk introduced by a new law that would create a new, arbitrary risk pool of "licensed professional chasers" in addition to all other public residents and "visitors" on Oklahoma's roads during storm-event days.
Exploitable argument!

5. Despite imposing a paltry "licensure fee" for those deemed "eligible" [without ever stating specifically how those fees will be used for the good of OK residents (e.g., road repairs/cones/barricades; continuing education and/or training for LEOs, public spotters, or County Emergency Management volunteers; general safety of the resident driving public, etc.)], the law makes no provision to increase the "hazard" pay for the extra workload and responsibility that this law will impose upon not only the state, but also county and municipal, law enforcement!
Exploitable argument!

6. Possible "perjury" allegation due to potential false and misleading "statements" that a spokesperson for a special interest in favor of passing this legislation may have provided in a House floor or committee presentation in recent days (i.e., statistics may have been exaggerated; but we have the correct, verifiable data).
Exploitable argument!

There are other possible arguments we can make (such as have appeared in the previous pages of this thread), but the above are all the ones that immediately came to mind. But this is a good start!

BTW, I'm not concerned whether those on the "other side" of this legislation read the discussions on this thread. That's their right under the FOIA. No need to be paranoid! The important thing is that we act right away before they can mount a cogent counter-offensive argument. At this stage of awareness, the senators pretty much already know what the bill says, so any attempt to counter our strong arguments with some flimsy excuse would look very disingenuous and they'd see right through the intent of that exercise. We need to just keep our heads focused on achieving what we feel is the right and best outcome for all the residents of Oklahoma...

 

[Warren Faidley]

Lot's of questions about how this bill will close or block roads.

Here you go. I posted this on X earlier.

Breaking..... Urgent... Please re-post to all social media. #HB2426 update.

A reporter asked me about HB2426 this morning, inquiring about how the bill may impede traffic flow and potentially "close roads." This is an ongoing question that requires further explanation:At some point during a severe weather, flood or fire threat, the criteria for a "Significant Weather Event" (SWE) will be met, allowing news crews to use their "flashing green and yellow lights. Law enforcement will be notified of the SWE activation to prevent misuse of lights.

After the SWE is activated, there will be two types of storm chasers on the road: professional and amateurs defined by Oklahoma law.

The main issue lies in the vague language of HB2426, specifically on page 13 line 11. It states [paraphrasing], that once an SWE is issued: any city, county, or law enforcement agency can **closed roads** by **reason of conditions triggered by the SWE** and only allow licensed chasers to pass. This ambiguity could lead to misuse and abuse of power to control traffic, including blocking of roads by individuals with little or no knowledge of current weather situations, some potentially life-threatening.

This would include conceivable road closures by not only law enforcement, but by toll both workers and city / county employees. Although this would likely be difficult to enforce in major cities, there would be little problem executing road closures on rural highways or in small towns.In addition to potential road closures, allowing 50-70 vehicles with special privileges to "exceed speed limits," run red lights, "disregard regulations governing direction of movement and disregard regulations governing turning in specified directions," (pages 11-12), will likely create very dangerous driving conditions for everyone.

Drivers may also be confused or panicked by legions of flashing lights, constantly trying to determine what kind of vehicle is approaching them. The chaos resulting from HB2426 could disrupt traffic flow, cause accidents and lead to complete stoppage of traffic, also known as "closed roads." (Editorial opinions).

@GovStitt @oksenate\
@oksenategop @OHPDPS
@OKCFD @TheOklahoman_
@tulsaworld @okem
@GovStitt @oksenate
@oksenategop @OHPDPS
@OKCFD @TheOklahoman_
@tulsaworld @okem

 

[gdlewen]

Lot's of questions about how this bill will close or block roads.

Here you go. I posted this on X earlier.

Breaking..... Urgent... Please re-post to all social media. #HB2426 update.

A reporter asked me about HB2426 this morning, inquiring about how the bill may impede traffic flow and potentially "close roads." This is an ongoing question that requires further explanation:At some point during a severe weather, flood or fire threat, the criteria for a "Significant Weather Event" (SWE) will be met, allowing news crews to use their "flashing green and yellow lights. Law enforcement will be notified of the SWE activation to prevent misuse of lights.

After the SWE is activated, there will be two types of storm chasers on the road: professional and amateurs defined by Oklahoma law.

The main issue lies in the vague language of HB2426, specifically on page 13 line 11. It states [paraphrasing], that once an SWE is issued: any city, county, or law enforcement agency can **closed roads** by **reason of conditions triggered by the SWE** and only allow licensed chasers to pass. This ambiguity could lead to misuse and abuse of power to control traffic, including blocking of roads by individuals with little or no knowledge of current weather situations, some potentially life-threatening.

This would include conceivable road closures by not only law enforcement, but by toll both workers and city / county employees. Although this would likely be difficult to enforce in major cities, there would be little problem executing road closures on rural highways or in small towns.In addition to potential road closures, allowing 50-70 vehicles with special privileges to "exceed speed limits," run red lights, "disregard regulations governing direction of movement and disregard regulations governing turning in specified directions," (pages 11-12), will likely create very dangerous driving conditions for everyone.

Drivers may also be confused or panicked by legions of flashing lights, constantly trying to determine what kind of vehicle is approaching them. The chaos resulting from HB2426 could disrupt traffic flow, cause accidents and lead to complete stoppage of traffic, also known as "closed roads." (Editorial opinions).

@GovStitt @oksenate\
@oksenategop @OHPDPS
@OKCFD @TheOklahoman_
@tulsaworld @okem
@GovStitt @oksenate
@oksenategop @OHPDPS
@OKCFD @TheOklahoman_
@tulsaworld @okem

I think that should be very clear. It’s certainly an argument we all understand.

It does not, however appear to be a compelling argument, given how the bill is progressing through the legislature.

I wonder if Fettgatter is countering it with arguments that policies are already in place to deal with road closures and this bill only places a regulatory framework around TV chasers and their behavior during SWE.

The only compelling argument I can see against this bill is that it is patently unconstitutional. There is no rationalization for that. And the first lawsuit to be filed against it will be on that basis. Not very glamorous, admittedly, but that’s the way I predict it will go. If it is signed into law.

No waiting around for the inevitable accident and then the messiness of who’s at fault and how the bill might or might not have been responsible.

Just the embarrassment of all those legislators who voted for an unconstitutional law. Probably Legislation 101: “Don’t propose or vote for unconstitutional laws.”

 

[Warren Faidley]

Unfortunately, this bill will not likely be challenged in court. Who will do this? The costs would be astronomical, especially in Federal court. Who would be affected to the point of spending hundreds-of-thousands to fight it? Not going to happen.

 

[gdlewen]

Unfortunately, this bill will not likely be challenged in court. Who will do this? The costs would be astronomical, especially in Federal court. Who would be affected to the point of spending hundreds-of-thousands to fight it? Not going to happen.

Well, we'll see. I know of at least one attorney who would like to get a "constitutional scalp" for their belt. It's good for one's reputation. And there will be lots of different classes who will have standing: every group discriminated against by this law.

Plus, this bill will not be challenged in Federal Court--the law proposed by the bill violates the Oklahoma State Constitution, which is a wholly different ball of wax.

But you may be right. Maybe this will not work. Therefore, best not to let it get that far.

But, as Fetgatter himself said in the Oversight meeting, “[Someone] will file a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma and the courts, which is their job, they will determine whether this was an unconstitutional law or not.” That was an arrogant throwaway line in committee but it will come true. Just not in the way he thinks.

 

[Warren Faidley]

There seems to be a lot of activist, Federal judges now days, so we should not have a problem finding one to nix this bill.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Oh my!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1906359797496111441